Coronary bypass surgery in patients treated with clopidogrel. Is it safe?

Ticagrelor versus genotype-driven antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention after acute coronary syndrome: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Clopidogrel's effectiveness is likely reduced significantly for prevention of thrombotic events after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients exhibiting a decreased ability to metabolize clopidogrel into its active form. A genetic mutation responsible for this reduced effectiveness is detectable by genotyping. Ticagrelor is not dependent on gene-based metabolic activation and demonstrated greater clinical efficacy than clopidogrel in a recent secondary prevention trial. In 2011, clopidogrel will lose its patent protection and likely will be substantially less expensive than ticagrelor.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor compared with a genotype-driven selection of antiplatelet agents.

METHODS

A hybrid decision tree/Markov model was used to estimate the 5-year medical costs (in 2009 US$) and outcomes for a cohort of ACS patients enrolled in Medicare receiving either genotype-driven or ticagrelor-only treatment. Outcomes included life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Data comparing the clinical performance of ticagrelor and clopidogrel were derived from the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes trial.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for universal ticagrelor was $10,059 per QALY compared to genotype-driven treatment, and was most sensitive to the price of ticagrelor and the hazard ratio for death for ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel. The ICER remained below $50,000 per QALY until a monthly ticagrelor price of $693 or a 0.93 hazard ratio for death for ticagrelor relative to clopidogrel. In probabilistic analyses, universal ticagrelor was below $50,000 per QALY in 97.7% of simulations.

CONCLUSION

Prescribing ticagrelor universally increases quality-adjusted life years for ACS patients at a cost below a typically accepted threshold.

Modern role for clopidogrel in management of atrial fibrillation and stroke reduction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia. The prevalence of AF increases sharply in old age (prevalence approximately 10% among persons 80 years of age and older). The expected risk for ischemic stroke is increased five-fold by the presence of AF, primarily as a result of cardiogenic embolism. Multiple large-scale, randomized trials have been completed or are still underway to find optimal, efficacious, and relatively safe ways to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke and other systemic thromboembolic events related to AF. Antithrombotic strategies are accompanied by serious bleeding complications that threaten patients in need of medical stroke prevention. Treatment regimens for preventing thromboembolism in AF patients range from vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin or coumadins, antiplatelet drugs like aspirin or clopidogrel, to newly developed orally available antithrombotics like the direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran, or the Factor Xa-inhibitor rivaroxaban. The available anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs have different advantages and disadvantages. This review attempts to delineate the specific role of clopidogrel in patients with AF and at risk of stroke, taking into consideration new and ongoing trials in this important field of medical practice.